One is called Goodlife Recipe and I had to look at the small print on the back of the bag to see that it was owned by Mars, which owns Pedigree. The other was an Iams product, a line extension called healthy naturals.
Normally, I would by Iams and I would never by Pedigree, but I was swayed by Goodlife. First of all, it is courageous of Mars to launch and entirely new brand (I later found out that they started a new division). And Iams was pushing the health angle - with language about antioxidants on the label. I'm a sucker for healthy, organic, natural, sustainable, etc., but I couldn't help thinking "really, antioxidants, for my dog?" Goodlife, on the other hand, was making a 'real food' claim that was much more compelling. So I tossed a bag into my cart, gave it to my dog for dinner and she quickly gobbled the entire bowl.
In an era where you can find Natural Cheetos on the shelf of both mainstream and premium grocery stores, its no surprise that natural dog foods have hit the shelves. But it is interesting to think about whether benefits that are compelling for your children can and should transfer directly to your pets. The different branding choices that Mars and P&G have made are interesting, too. Are more people compelled by a natural version of their tried and true brand than an entirely new brand that they know nothing about? I don't have the sales data to know. But starting a new division around a premium natural food looks like a company making a commitment that I personally wanted to reward.
1 comment:
I'm interested in the decision process that considers purchase as 'rewarding' a company. I wonder if this is just an occupational hazard among those of us who so often encourage companies to do bold, systemic things (as did Mars) instead of safe bets (P&G)....or is it maybe more widespread? Do 'ordinary' consumers take corporate action into account when selecting products?
Post a Comment